85mm 1.8 Not sharp?

giballi wrote in post #16752884
So on a similar note, I just picked up the 85 and I am wondering the same thing. This was taken at 2.8 so you'd think it would be very sharper than wide open at 1.8 does it look sharp to you?

your DOF is slightly off, eyes in focus barely. Jaw starting to go out of focus. If you're using a filter, take it off. Lastly, ts is comparing on a 5D2 vs your 60D, there's quite a bit of difference in sharpness.

Charlie wrote in post #16753187
your DOF is slightly off, eyes in focus barely. Jaw starting to go out of focus. If you're using a filter, take it off. Lastly, ts is comparing on a 5D2 vs your 60D, there's quite a bit of difference in sharpness.

I actually am using a $3 UV filter on it, is that why? You'd think that at 2.8 it would be sharper than wide open right?

Take the cheap filter off !

gasrocks wrote in post #16753348
Take the cheap filter off !

Hah I guess I should have ponied up the $10 for the best buy one? I thought as long as it seemed smooth it would be fine.

giballi wrote in post #16753339
I actually am using a $3 UV filter on it, is that why? You'd think that at 2.8 it would be sharper than wide open right?

take the filter off, the cheaper the filter, the softer your lens

giballi wrote in post #16753373
Hah I guess I should have ponied up the $10 for the best buy one? I thought as long as it seemed smooth it would be fine.

purchase the hood for the 85mm, it's much better than a filter in terms of protection, and it doesnt degrade image quality, and in some scenarios, even increases image quality (light protection).

Charlie wrote in post #16753379
purchase the hood for the 85mm, it's much better than a filter in terms of protection, and it doesnt degrade image quality, and in some scenarios, even increases image quality (light protection).

Good I have it on the way. How about the best buy rocketfish protector, it seems pretty good for $10 lol

On second thought, I had a cheapie on my old nifty fifty 1.8 and it was sharp even wide open. Did I get lucky or could there be a focus issue with the 85? Guess I'll take some more shots, I just want to figure it out since I'm still in the exchange window.

giballi wrote in post #16753423
Good I have it on the way. How about the best buy rocketfish protector, it seems pretty good for $10 lol

Skip that filter - no better than your $3 one. If you are going to filter you should consider it as an extra "extension" element of your lens - in other words good lens should get a good filter. There are good options in the B + W, Hoya, Maruni and other lines... Poke around the filter threads here on the forum

SamFrench wrote in post #16753440
Skip that filter - no better than your $3 one. If you are going to filter you should consider it as an extra "extension" element of your lens - in other words good lens should get a good filter. There are good options in the B + W, Hoya, Maruni and other lines... Poke around the filter threads here on the forum

Thanks, much appreciated. It's weird that the 50mm did well with sharpness with the cheap filter...maybe I need to shoot more with the 85 as it could have a focus issue?

giballi wrote in post #16753423
Good I have it on the way. How about the best buy rocketfish protector, it seems pretty good for $10 lol

On second thought, I had a cheapie on my old nifty fifty 1.8 and it was sharp even wide open. Did I get lucky or could there be a focus issue with the 85? Guess I'll take some more shots, I just want to figure it out since I'm still in the exchange window.

At first, I thought you were just trolling for responses, but if this was a legitimate question:

If you're serious at all about image quality, stop shopping at Best Buy for photo equipment (aside from maybe memory cards, and other minor accessories if you can get a good price.)

Without starting another 'UV filter or not' debate, a UV/protection filter is not NECESSARY. It will protect your front lens element and seal a lens with weather sealing, but a cheap one will degrade your image quality.

Like people above have stated, a lens hood will help control flare and boost contrast, while offering some protection for your lens.

If you do want the added protection of a UV filter, go with a B+W multi-coated as an absolute minimum. B&H link here.

Ninja1283 wrote in post #16753499
At first, I thought you were just trolling for responses, but if this was a legitimate question:

If you're serious at all about image quality, stop shopping at Best Buy for photo equipment (aside from maybe memory cards, and other minor accessories if you can get a good price.)

Without starting another 'UV filter or not' debate, a UV/protection filter is not NECESSARY. It will protect your front lens element and seal a lens with weather sealing, but a cheap one will degrade your image quality.

Like people above have stated, a lens hood will help control flare and boost contrast, while offering some protection for your lens.

If you do want the added protection of a UV filter, go with a B+W multi-coated as an absolute minimum. B&H link here.

Ok thanks for the response, no I'm not trolling, I'm just new. And I guess I took the advice of someone that said every lens should have a uv filter on it so I thought it was necessary. And I guess ignorantly thought that they were all the same and I should save the money if it was just for protection. It makes sense that it could affect IQ. If it's not necessary I'll skip it and maybe learn to clean dust off if that ever becomes an issue. And as far as Best Buy is concerned, I just bought the camera from them and the lens (I didn't see any difference between them and another retailer) in the future I'll take what I hear with a grain of salt.

And sorry OP I didnt mean to derail your thread, I just figured it may be a similar issue since I'm not very familiar with back or front focusing.

Ninja1283 wrote in post #16753499
At first, I thought you were just trolling for responses, but if this was a legitimate question:

If you're serious at all about image quality, stop shopping at Best Buy for photo equipment (aside from maybe memory cards, and other minor accessories if you can get a good price.)

Without starting another 'UV filter or not' debate, a UV/protection filter is not NECESSARY. It will protect your front lens element and seal a lens with weather sealing, but a cheap one will degrade your image quality.

Like people above have stated, a lens hood will help control flare and boost contrast, while offering some protection for your lens.

If you do want the added protection of a UV filter, go with a B+W multi-coated as an absolute minimum. B&H link here.

If you want a filter for protection only, there is a class of filters called 'Clear' which is just this. A B+W Nano or a Hoya MRC (I've used them both) will set you back $35-58 for 58 mm thread diameter.

So many variables here. Lens copy, MFA needed, different lighting in each photo, different exposure settings perhaps, cheap UV filter.... Yeah, take that $3 filter off. When I first started I was told the same thing, "You should always have a UV filter on your lens." Come to find out it's really not needed with today's technology. Their only use is really for protection in my opinion, and in other's opinions as well I'm sure, and even that's debatable. A lens hood will be just as good though and help improve the quality of your images.

My 85 1.8 is awesome and I wouldn't dream of putting a UV filter on it. I just baby the crap out of it because up until this past weekend it's been my most expensive lens. I just shot with it this past Saturday and it still blows me away at how well it performs.

giballi wrote in post #16753618
Ok thanks for the response, no I'm not trolling, I'm just new. And I guess I took the advice of someone that said every lens should have a uv filter on it. If it's not necessary I'll skip it and maybe learn to clean dust off if that ever becomes an issue

No problem, and welcome to the forums.

I probably have UV filters on 90% of my lenses, but I do a lot of work on or near ocean/beaches, so there is a constant threat of sand and saltwater spray. As long as you spring for a higher quality filter, you shouldn't see any IQ degradation, and will have the extra protection a filter offers. If you're in a studio or shooting in a cleaner environment, UV filters really aren't necessary as long as you keep your lenses clean. In either case though, I would recommend the lens hood to cut down on stray light that will rob your shots of contrast and saturation.

Like most other aspects of photography, this topic is a compromise between cost, protection and image quality.

Ninja1283 wrote in post #16753652
...
I probably have UV filters on 90% of my lenses, but I do a lot of work on or near ocean/beaches, so there is a constant threat of sand and saltwater spray......

See, a perfect reason to use a filter!